The gall of Planned Parenthood

You may not have realized it, but Planned Parenthood has an absolute right to taxpayer dollars — so says Planned Parenthood of Tennessee. The organization’s Tennessee branch is suing the state government for pulling funding for “political” reasons. Excerpt:

Two Tennessee Planned Parenthood groups sued the state Thursday for denying the nonprofit more than $150,000 in grant money to participate in programs funded by the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Planned Parenthood wants a federal judge to intervene and asked for an injunction against the state.

In the lawsuit, Planned Parenthood accuses the state of arbitrarily denying the funding in December and this month — without providing a reason — after approving it in August. Planned Parenthood also accuses the state of violating the organization’s First Amendment rights and patients’ rights by restricting access to non-abortion services based solely on an aversion to abortion.

While the state did not provide Planned Parenthood a reason for denying it access to the grant money, Gov. Bill Haslam and his political allies have been open about their opposition to funding the organization with government money.

Of course it’s politically motivated, fools! Whatever a legislature does is politically motivated. So what? Last time I checked, in a democracy, legislatures have the right to allocate taxpayer dollars as they see fit. If voters don’t like it, they can vote the politicians out.

Planned Parenthood lost a political fight, so they’re asking the court to fight for them. The Tennessee governor and his legislative allies may have made a bad call here, but it is utterly galling that Planned Parenthood thinks it has a right to taxpayer dollars, despite the will of the taxpayers, as expressed through their elected representatives. If a liberal Democratic state government defunded an organization favored by social conservatives, that might anger me, but I couldn’t imagine thinking that my favored group had some kind of unassailable claim on taxpayer dollars. That is wildly undemocratic.

The implication of Planned Parenthood’s First Amendment complaint is that abortion is somehow a sacred topic, removed from ordinary politics. They appear to be saying that because a democratically elected government dislikes the organization’s involvement in abortion, it has no right to decide not to fund other things the organization does. That is a bizarre First Amendment claim. The Tennessee government is not telling Planned Parenthood it cannot provide abortions, or advocate for abortion and abortion rights. It is not telling Planned Parenthood it cannot solicit private donations to fund its services. The government is merely telling the organization that it will not provide money to it. What on earth does that have to do with a First Amendment violation? Are we to think that it’s unconstitutional to refuse to give government money to Planned Parenthood?

The reader who sent this item to me remarked:

Good grief. So now people don’t have the right to stop state money from going to Planned Parenthood because of an “aversion to abortion.” We don’t just have to allow unrestricted access to abortion on demand, we have to pretend to like it? Or get sued?

UPDATE: Philosopher, a reader, points out below that the US Supreme Court sided with the KKK some years ago when the State of Missouri tried to keep the Klan from participating in an Adopt-a-Highway program, because it disapproved of the Klan’s beliefs. That is news to me. This would seem to put the state of Tennessee at a significant disadvantage in this case. One possible difference: Tennessee doesn’t seem to object to Planned Parenthood’s advocacy of abortion, but rather that it provides abortions. Another possible difference: the Missouri case didn’t involve the disbursal of funds, but rather permission to participate in a state-run program.

Question to lawyers, then: is it really the case that if Planned Parenthood wants government money, the government has to give it to them? That can’t be right. What are the guidelines here?

MORE FROM THIS AUTHOR

Hide 61 comments

61 Responses to The gall of Planned Parenthood

Thanks Rod. The reason I come to your blog and post, even though I am a card carrying liberal is that you are open to reason and permit free discussion.

Now, to push my luck a little! Will you admit that this case, rather than showing any “gall” on the part of PP, is instead yet another example of a State government tying to undermine Roe, and doing so in a rather sloppy and ham-fisted way?

Opponents of Roe understand that head on attacks are doomed, at least unless and until the composition of the Supreme Court changes. And so, in the meantime, they engage in petty, harassing attacks on abortion providers, with PP being the leader, in a war of attrition. Don’t you think, honestly, that that is what is going on here? Tennessee doesn’t have a case. It awarded the grants already and hasn’t even offered a legitmate excuse for canceling them. Still, the ploy allows the governor to grandstand as a firm abortion opponent, forces PP to waste time, money and energy fighting it, and provides fodder for rousing the anti abortion troops with false claims about “PP demanding government money as a matter of right!” Yes, you are open to persuasion, to argumentation and analysis which shows that that is not what is going on here, but not all anti abortion folks are like you, in that regard.

Oh, sure it’s an example of a state government trying to discourage abortion. Is that the same thing as “trying to undermine Roe”? I’m not sure why accepting the legal status of abortion rights requires local governments, or anyone, to be neutral about the exercise of those rights. If your analysis is correct, then the state of Tennessee has acted in a way that is most likely illegal. If so, well, it should not do that, and I expect the court will remedy that problem.

Yet on principle — as distinct from tactics — I still don’t see why a state shouldn’t try, within the law, to discourage the practice of abortion.

Opponents of Roe understand that head on attacks are doomed, at least unless and until the composition of the Supreme Court changes. And so, in the meantime, they engage in petty, harassing attacks on abortion providers, with PP being the leader, in a war of attrition.

Yes, that was much of strategy of the fight against slavery and Jim Crow as well — petty, harassing attacks, in a war of attrition designed to wear down people engaged in something morally repugnant but, at the time, legally permissible.

“Yet on principle — as distinct from tactics — I still don’t see why a state shouldn’t try, within the law, to discourage the practice of abortion.” I think that’s exactly right. For example, I can’t think of anything that would prevent a state from, say, offering all sorts of services that would help women with unwanted pregnancy see through safely to term, and provide incentives for them to do so. To take a real-world case, albeit one of surely minimal real impact, don’t lots of states have various forms of pro-life license plates available for vanity tags? It’s just that that “within the law” proviso you’ve got there has some real teeth here, for cases like the one in TN in question.

I wonder if a less-heated example to think about would be something like divorce? I think a state can do all sorts of things to try to reduce its divorce rate, including tax benefits for married couples, state-funded marriage counseling, and so on. But what a state probably can’t do is have some sort of program for which lawyers would be the relevant applicant pool, and then say, “No lawyers who handle divorces are allowed.” The state’s promoting a decision is one thing; its penalizing people for making a different decision is, perhaps, another. It’s a distinction that can get a little squirrelly in places — when does providing everyone else except X a benefit constitute penalizing X? — but I believe it’s already part of our doctrines on when the state can promote speech (fairly often) vs. when it can prohibit it (very, very rarely).

“Yes, that was much of strategy of the fight against slavery and Jim Crow as well — petty, harassing attacks, in a war of attrition designed to wear down people engaged in something morally repugnant but, at the time, legally permissible.”

Leaving aside my obvious disagreement with your implied equation of abortion with slavery and Jim Crow, and also putting to one side any question of the accuracy of your explicit equation of the tactics of the anti abortion folks with those of the Abolitionists and the Civil Rights Movement, I still don’t really see what this comment proves. In this thread, it is means which are being discussed, not ends. First the means of the PP in filing the suit, then those of the Health Dept in Tennessee in taking the actions which prompted the suit. A bad means employed in the service of a good end is still a bad means, even assuming the anti abortion cause is a good one. And the fact, if it be a fact, that a paticular means was employed by the Abolitionists or the Civil Rights Movement doesn’t, automatically, signify that it was a good one.

“If your analysis is correct, then the state of Tennessee has acted in a way that is most likely illegal. If so, well, it should not do that, and I expect the court will remedy that problem.”

That strikes me as just a little bit blithe, and fairly inconsistent with the outrage shown at PP at the beginning of the discussion. The mere filing of a lawsuit by PP against the State of Tennesse, which was seen, erroneously, as baseless, was a “galling” horror, but the actual breaking of the law by Tennesse to the detriment of PP is met with with only the mildest of rebukes (“well, it should not do that”). Moreover the probability that a court would dismiss PP’s lawsuit, if it really was baseless, was not seen as relieving PP from censure for its supposed misconduct, such a probability was not even mentioned. But the probability of a court remedying Tennesse’s misconduct is seen as wiping the slate clean, and as dismissing the issue of Tennessee’s misconduct entirely. Which, of course, ignores the issue of PP having to expend time, energy and effort obtaining the remedy from the court.

And it completely ignores the issue that such misconduct is not isolated, but is routine, is part of a campaign of such tactics which sometimes skirt the edge of the law but oftentimes go right over that edge.

Re: What is really disgusting about this resort to judicial intervention is how it skews our political culture.

Yes indeed. At one time I could at least take some solace in the fact that conservatives would avoid such tactics. But they’re just as apt to run to the courts as liberals are when they don’t get their way: hence the anti-ACA lawsuits.

Rod, you are wrong about this. Aren’t you at all troubled by the morality of Komen lying about the reason they initially defunded PP, lying about who on it’s staff was involved, and lying about “rescinding” that policy? Nancy Brinker’s performance in all of this reeks of dissembling, patronizing arrogance.

“Yes, that was much of strategy of the fight against slavery and Jim Crow as well — petty, harassing attacks, in a war of attrition designed to wear down people engaged in something morally repugnant but, at the time, legally permissible.”

AND, that was much of the strategy of the fight against the civil rights movement as well — petty harassing attacks, in a war of attrition designed to wear down the people engaged in something morally repugnant to White Christian America, sometimes using methods, at the time, legally permissible, but often stepping over into naked terrorism, with the full support of the local police and sheriffs.

Incidentally, the work of the Underground Railroad was NOT “at the time, legally permissible.” It carried a substantial federal prison sentence, if apprehended.

So analogies at to tactical choices hardly highlight who is morally correct. Hey, that could be a new phraseology! Is “morally correct” the new “politically correct”?

Rod: “I’m not sure why accepting the legal status of abortion rights requires local governments, or anyone, to be neutral about the exercise of those rights.”

Would you say that about, say, voting rights? That just because the pesky federal gov’t requires voting rights for minorities, states which disagree with minorities having the right to vote get to interfere with those rights?

Long story short, no – the states can offer alternatives to abortion, but they do not get to directly interfere with it outside of their own *constitutional* state laws, especially when the state denies federal funds to a qualified recipient just because the state doesn’t like that the recipient performs abortions.

I left the US in 2001 to live in Asia. Every time I return to America, I see the USA getting worse. I am angry, shocked, surprised, saddened, disappointed, and disgusted by the changes I see.

When I leave from a sparkling new modern Asian airport like Hong Kong, Seoul, or Shanghai and land at a run down American airport like LAX that has faded signs, broken water fountains, and a decor that looks like it hasn’t been updated since 1984, I feel like I have arrived in a 3rd world country.

I see Americans getting fatter.

I see more laws in the USA that outlaw everything from baggy pants to sex tourism to artificial turf to feeding the homeless to banning fast food restaurants.

I see the end of freedom in the US. Americans can now be added to no fly lists. The US Constitution has been overruled by the Patriot Act that has legalized wiretaps without a warrant and allows the government to deport and strip any American of his or her citizenship. Does that sound American to you?

President Obama recently signed the National Defense Authorization Act that allows the indefinite detention of any American or foreigner accused of terrorism without trial by the US military on US or foreign soil.

I see a higher unemployment rate and more welfare. I see jobs have been offshored to cheaper countries, more jobs lost to technology, and the US flooded with illegal immigrants that take American jobs, don’t pay taxes, and drain government resources.

I see indebted Americans who bought more than they could afford and a broke US government that has lowered taxes, but increased spending on unnecessary wars.

Looking at the history of Rome, Nazi Germany, and the United States, I see some disturbing parallels:

1. While becoming a superpower, Rome abandoned the very values with which it had won its supremacy.

2. Roman rulers used “self-defense” pretexts to invade other countries, with hawks criticizing doves for not being patriotic.

3. War benefited the Roman elite before the masses.

4. Wars were sold as about liberty and justice defeating tyranny.

5. The aggressor nation stated conditions to avoid war that are impossible for the opponent to comply with.

6. Powerful Romans hated to make concessions. They would have rather fought to the death instead of giving in to the the demands of citizens. The elite felt that they earned it, even though they used corruption to amass their wealth.

7. Romans became weak and lazy because the masses were given free bread and circuses.

8. The people seen as “barbarians” gradually wore down the empire, causing it to spend itself into bankruptcy.

In Nazi Germany, the Reichstag burned in 1933. In the USA, the World Trade center was attacked in 2001.

Nazi Germany passed the Enabling Act that gave Hitler dictatorial powers. The US now has the Patriot Act.

Nazi Germany opened Jewish concentration camps. The US has opened the Guantanamo Bay detention camps.

Germany invaded Czechoslovakia and Poland. The US invaded Iraq and Afghanistan.

Americans should not just be concerned by the recent changes in the US, they should be outraged. We need to get our country back.

I suggest that we start moving the US in a better direction by doing the following:

1. Americans would be more healthier and better looking if they just started eating
less and exercising more.

2. The US really needs to end the very scary and obvious movement that is banning freedom, increasing nanny state laws, and expanding the creation of a military socialist dictatorship. Even if politicians says they won’t use unconstitutional laws on the books now, doesn’t mean that later officials won’t. Americans that stay silent while illegal laws are enacted should not depend entirely on the Supreme Court to protect their rights because courts once protected slavery, segregation, and concentration camps as well. The time to protest unconstitutional laws is before they are enacted. Americans cannot naively believe a dictator like Hitler or Stalin will never seize power in the US.

If America has no freedom, criticizing countries like China or North Korea is hypocritical.

Everyone opposes terrorism, but if you want to prevent terrorism, give suspected terrorists a trial, improve airline security, and don’t give out visas easily. Terrorism should not be an excuse to declare war against Americans. Not only are many of the growing flood of regulations wrong, they are also unnecessary. One only needs to look at the pro-democracy protests in the Middle East to see Arabs prefer following a democratic model instead of Osama bin Laden terrorism.

3. Americans should call for a much smaller government with less welfare, a greatly reduced military budget, a tax hike on the richest, higher visa fees for foreigners, increasing sin taxes on alcohol and tobacco, reducing the wages of government workers, ending government farm and airline subsidies, and eliminating less important programs like Amtrak, PBS, and the National Endowment for the Arts. We should stop extending unemployment benefits and require unemployed Americans to take jobs in farming, meatpacking plants, construction, landscaping, and hotels. Business people should not be punished while lazy people are encouraged to depend on government welfare. Welfare makes people lazy and no country would be foolish enough to attack the US even with a smaller military. We need to get the American house in order before we try to control the world.

4. Americans need to start moving overseas to teach English and export US products. Whining about jobs being outsourced because foreign workers are willing to work cheaper is not very practical. Americans would be shocked how poor product quality and shopping selection is in 3rd world countries compared to the US. Would you rather have an American car or a Chinese one?

5. One of the few areas the US government needs to increase spending is enforcing immigration laws and protecting the border from illegal immigrants. Limited legal immigration is not bad, but allowing illegal immigrants to live in the US encourages disrespect for the law. Illegal immigrants should not be allowed to have driver licenses, pay in-state tuition, or receive government benefits. The lives of illegals should not be made easier or be rewarded for breaking the law. Illegals should be deported and employers should be required to use E-Verify. If 13 million Americans are out of work, 12 million illegal immigrants should not be taking up the jobs.

6. Americans need to start living within their means and stop taking on credit card debt, auto
loans, mortgages, and student loans. What you want and what you need are two different things.

7. Americans should vote for any presidential candidate other than Obama. Obama is a pessimistic pro-government, anti-business, anti-freedom, pro-illegal immigration, and pro-war politician who is continuing most of the worst policies of George W. Bush that will bankrupt the US without improving much at all.

8. Despite the very real problems facing the US, Americans also need to remain confident. The USA is by far the richest and most powerful country in the world. Who invented the assembly line, telephones, movies, light bulbs, airplanes, air conditioning, elevators, skyscrapers, television, the atomic bomb, the pill, calculators, microwaves, lasers, the Internet, mobile phones, the space shuttle, and landed on the moon? What country wins the most medals at the Olympics despite having only 5% of the world population? If the United States is dying, why do so many people want to immigrate there?

While I must admit that I once did not oppose some of the policies like the Iraq war, less banking regulation, and tax cuts that lead to part of our current troubles, I now fear that more terrorism laws, bigger government, coddling illegal immigrants, and increased debt are not the solutions to our problems. I was quiet once about concerns I saw in the past and I regret it. Now I think people should not keep silent while watching a potential train wreck.

The problems facing the USA require urgent action. I love the United States and I do not want the strongest, richest, and most free country in the world to fall. Talk about the changes happening to the US with your friends and family, vote, donate to the ACLU, contact the media, and write to your elected officials. Thousands of Americans did not die fighting for freedom and democracy in wars to have liberty denied in the USA. Do not let their sacrifice go to waste.

America won’t be a beacon to the world if freedom is banned and the US goes bankrupt. Stand up, fight for your rights and values, and protect our country now!